In a recent meeting of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Assembly members discussed the State Auditor's recommendation for the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to explore the establishment of state-owned transitional housing by September 2025. However, DSH officials expressed strong disagreement with this recommendation, arguing that transitional housing would not effectively address the existing challenges related to the placement of individuals in the community.

The DSH highlighted several reasons for their opposition. They noted that the current model used in Washington State, often cited as a potential solution, would not resolve the issues faced in California. Key concerns included the difficulty of finding suitable locations for transitional facilities, which could be further complicated by statutory residency restrictions and individual risk factors. These challenges could lead to community protests against the placement of such facilities, ultimately delaying their development.

Moreover, DSH officials pointed out that the law mandates individuals be placed in their county of domicile, which complicates the establishment of transitional facilities in counties with few individuals needing placement. With only about 20 patients in the program at any given time, many counties may not have enough individuals to justify a transitional facility. This situation raises concerns about the potential for significant community backlash if facilities were proposed in areas with limited local support.

The discussion also touched on the financial implications of developing transitional housing. DSH representatives warned that without significant changes to existing laws, creating these facilities would not alleviate the need for individuals to be placed in the community after treatment, potentially leading to increased costs without solving the underlying issues.

As the meeting progressed, Assembly members engaged in further discussions about the placement process and the role of state hospitals, indicating ongoing legislative efforts to address these complex issues. The committee's deliberations reflect a critical examination of how California can effectively manage the placement of individuals while balancing community concerns and legal requirements. The outcome of these discussions may shape future policies and practices within the state's mental health system.